coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  In October 1984 eleven artists founded the “Zichy Mihály” Art Gallery. In December 1984 the Hungarian Art’s Fund, pursuant to Government Decree No. 83/1982, approved the gallery’s foundation as a “creative art community”.
5.  In 1989 Parliament passed the Associations Act, requiring the registration of associations.
6.  As of 1 October 1992, due to a modification in the Government Decree, the supervision of the applicant was to be exercised by the Ministry of Culture and Education.
7.  On 29 April 1993 the Constitutional Court declared the relevant parts of the Government Decree unconstitutional and annulled them. Consequently, the registration rules of the Associations Act became applicable to the applicant as well.
8.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant requested that its legal personality be acknowledged by the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant refused to submit a request for registration, reasoning that it was the Ministry’s duty to do so.
9.  On 23 April 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The Regional Court held that the request of the applicant, whose legal personality had ceased pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision, had not complied with the substantive and formal requirements set out in the Associations Act. On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, upheld the Regional Court’s decision.
10.  On 14 October 1997 the Supreme Court, in review proceedings, quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s legal personality had not ceased because of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 January 1998 the Budapest Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed that the Regional Court require the applicant to adjust its statute to the requirements of the Associations Act. On 23 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the applicant’s registration.
12.  On 8 March 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
13.  On 12 April 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to submit supplementary documents. The applicant failed to comply with this order.
14.  On 10 July 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On 31 July 2000 the applicant appealed.
15.  On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the order and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
16.  On 28 January 2002 the Budapest Regional Court registered the applicant association.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 29 September 1995 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, the E. Rt, seeking the annulment of the termination of his employment and claiming payment of outstanding night-shift allowances. On 5 March 1996 the applicant modified his action and also requested that outstanding wages be paid to him.
6.  On 21 May, 9 August and 6 September 1996, the Budapest Labour Court held hearings and, on 15 November 1996, it dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 2 January 1997 the applicant appealed. On 16 August 1997 he finalised his appeal.
7.  On 5 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court upheld, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 9 December 1998, the first-instance decision in so far as it concerned the termination of the applicant’s employment. As regards the issue of the outstanding night-shift allowances, the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court’s decision and remitted the case to it.
8.  On 7 April 1999 the applicant requested that the final part of the proceedings be re-opened. He also submitted another petition for review against the final decision, which was rejected ex officio by the Supreme Court on 31 May 1999.
9.  In the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for a re-opening, the Labour Court held hearings on 1 October, 5 November and 17 December 1999. Subsequently, all of the judges of the Labour Court declared bias and requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 9 May 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case.
10.  In the resumed proceedings for outstanding wages, on 4 October 2000 the Pest County Labour Court heard the parties, and on 10 October 2000 it ordered a judicial auditing expertise. The expert’s appointment was, however, cancelled on 4 December 2000. On 18 May, 22 June and 14 September 2001 the Labour Court held hearings.
11.  On the applicant’s motion, on 19 November 2001 the judges of the Pest County Labour Court declared themselves biased. On 9 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to proceed with the applicant’s request for a re-opening. On 8 May 2002 the Labour Court rejected, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 15 July 2002, the applicant’s request for the re-opening.
12.  On 27 June 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to examine the applicant’s claim for outstanding wages in the resumed proceedings. On 21 October 2002 and 5 February 2003, the Labour Court held hearings.
13.  On 19 May 2003 the Labour Court determined part of the applicant’s claims. The applicant’s appeal against this partial decision was dismissed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 6 April 2004. The applicant petitioned the Supreme Court for a review. These proceedings are still pending.
14.  On 29 October 2004 the Székesfehérvár Labour Court suspended the proceedings concerning the remainder of the applicant’s claims. On 5 January 2005 the Fejér County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order suspending the case.
5.  The applicant, Mr Ivan Trofimovich Varanitsa, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1934 and currently resides in Krasnoarmeysk, in the Donetsk Region.
6.  On 19 January 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Court ordered the State mine “Rodinskaya” (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 2,961.35[1] in compensation for salary arrears. On the same date the court delivered writs of execution to the applicant. The judgment became final on 31 January 2000.
7.  On 14 February 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Bailiffs initiated the enforcement of the judgment of 19 January 2000. The enforcement was suspended on the same date due to the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the Mine pending before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration.
8.  On 6 June 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Bailiffs reinitiated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case.
9.  On 10 April 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration declared the Mine bankrupt. On 19 June 2001 this decision was quashed by the same court.
10.  On 18, 20 and 25 March 2002 the Krasnoarmeysk City Deparment of Justice, the Department of Justice for the Donetsk Region, informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds.
11.  On 9 April 2002 the Krasnoarmeysk City Department of Justice informed the applicant that the Mine had been receiving funds from the State budget in order to pay salary arrears. It also informed the applicant that the Mine’s property could not be attached and that the Execution Service was presently executing earlier writs issued against the Mine in 1998.
12.  On 21 August 2002 the applicant was paid UAH 58.26.[2]
13.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant received UAH 25.52[3]. The remainder of the unpaid debt was therefore UAH 2,877.57[4].
14.  In August 2003 the mine paid the remainder of the debt to the applicant, which was by then UAH 2,961.35[5].
15.  On 11 August 2003 the Krasnoarmeysk City Department of Justice terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full execution of the judgment of 19 January 2000.
16.  On 8 October 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment given in his favour had been enforced in full. However, he still requested compensation for moral damage for the State’s failure to enforce the judgment for three years and eight months.
6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence.
7.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to R. A.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 March 1987, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 3 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 12 June 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by February 1990.
10.  On 10 March 1990, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 5 April 1990, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
12.  On 11 April 1990, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 May 1990.
13.  Between 31 May 1990 and 4 May 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 26 July 1999, pursuant to Law 431/98, the tenant asked for the suspension of the eviction proceedings.
15.  On 30 September 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Rome.
7.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to R.B.
8.  In a registered letter of 31 December 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1992, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 8 July 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1994.
11.  Pursuant to Law no. 359/92 the expiry of the term was extended for two years from 30 November 1993 to 30 November 1995.
12.  Nonetheless, on 4 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 30 November 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1994.
14.  Between 15 December 1994 and 10 October 1995, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. In the meanwhile, the tenant fell in rent arrears.
15.  On 6 April 1995, pursuant to Law no. 61/89, the applicant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the extension of the expiry of the term and asked to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The Rome Magistrate refused to grant the assistance of the police.
16.  Therefore, the applicant decided to restart the eviction proceedings.
17.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 November 1995, the applicant informed her of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
18.  By a decision of 28 March 1996, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 January 1997.
19.  On 20 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
20.  On 9 May 1997, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 May 1997.
21.  Between 20 May 1997 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
22.  The eviction proceedings having been suspended pursuant to Law no. 431/1998, on 8 September 1999 the applicant served a second order to vacate the premises.
23.  On 29 September 1999, a second notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 October 1999.
24.  After two attempts, on 3 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.
6.  The applicants were respectively born in 1963 and 1959 and live in Rome.
7.  A.C., the applicants' mother, was the owner of a flat in Rome which she had let to A.F.
8.  In a registered letter of 2 May 1987, A.C. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 June 1987, A.C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 30 November 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
11.  On 2 October 1989, A.C. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 30 October 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 December 1989.
13.  Between 19 December 1989 and 25 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  In the meanwhile, on 27 February 1996, A.C., the applicants' mother, died and the applicants inherited the flat.
15.  On 28 March 1996, the applicants became party in the national proceedings as heirs.
16.  On 14 February 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Ankara.
5.  On 21 November 1983 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev‑Yol (Devrimci Yol - the Revolutionary Way).
6.  On 30 December 1983 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
7.  On 14 December 1988 the applicant was released pending trial.
8.  On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
9.  On 28 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.
10.  Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case.
11.  On 6 May 1996 the Ankara Assize Court commenced the applicant’s trial.
12.  On 28 May 2004 the applicant was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. The first-instance court however held that there was no need for the applicant’s imprisonment, taking into account his previous custody and detention on remand.
13.  The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  In 1988 the applicant was convicted of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. On 15 April 1991 he was conditionally released from prison.
7.  On 16 March 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by the police. On 9 April 1996 the applicant was interrogated by the police officers at the Tunceli Security Directorate.
8.  On 9 April 1996 the Malatya State Security Court ordered his detention on remand.
9.  On 22 April 1996 the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership in an illegal armed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law no. 3713.
10.  In the meantime on 7 May 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicant of being an accessory to a bank robbery and murder of a clerk on 18 May 1992. On 26 December 1996 the two cases were joined and the criminal proceedings against the applicant continued before the Malatya State Security Court.
11.  On 16 December 1997 the Malatya State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
12.  On 30 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Malatya State Security Court without conducting a hearing since the applicant's lawyer was absent without justification.
13.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant was released from prison due to ill-health pursuant to Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the applicant was imprisoned, in total, for about six years and six months.
5.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and currently resides in Lysychansk, Ukraine.
6.  In 1997-1998 the applicant worked as a miner for the State-owned Lysychansk Mine-Construction Company (Shakhtobudivel’ne Upravlinnia; the “LSU”).
7.  The Government submitted that from 1997 onwards the LSU experienced financial difficulties and therefore the salaries were paid to its employees irregularly. On 24 July 1997 the Lysychansk State Tax Inspectorate informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the LSU’s property was in a tax lien.
8.  In October 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lysychansk City Court against the LSU seeking to recover the salary owed to him.
9.  On 2 November 2000 the Lysychansk City Court allowed his claims and ordered the LSU to pay the applicant UAH 4,857.53[1] in compensation.
10.  On 14 November 2000 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted execution proceedings in respect of the judgment of 2 November 2000.
11.  On 23 November 2000 the bailiff passed a resolution collecting an enforcement fee from the debtor and joining the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case to the combined enforcement proceedings no. 4/2 of 1 September 2000 that concerned other creditors of the mine.
12.  On 1 July 2001 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that his judgment could not be executed due to the LSU’s lack of funds.
13.  On 28 November 2003 the LSU paid the applicant UAH 4,857.53, in compliance with the judgment of 2 November 2000.
14.  On 1 December 2003 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service terminated the proceedings as the judgment had been enforced in full.
15.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had been paid the sum of UAH 6,665[2] in compensation for salary arrears, which sum included the judgment debt of 2 November 2000.
6.  The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Olegovich Dolgov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 2 March 1958 in Illovaisk and currently resides there.
7.  In September 1999 the applicant lodged two complaints with the Labour Disputes Commission (the “Commission”) of the State Joint Stock Company Illovayskaya Mine (his former employer – hereafter the “Mine”) seeking reimbursement of salary arrears in the amount of UAH 1,535.02[1] for work he had performed in 1997 and 1999.
8.  On 19 October 1999 the Commission held that the first part of the complaint should be allowed and the Mine should pay the applicant UAH 687.61[2] in arrears for September, October, November and December 1997.
9.  On 11 November 1999 the Commission ordered the Mine to pay the wages due to the applicant. On 6 December 1999 the Khartsyzsk City Baillifs initiated execution proceedings on the basis of this order. However, it was not executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds.
10.  In February 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the Mine, seeking termination of his employment contract.
11.  On 7 March 2000 the applicant again lodged complaints with the Commission, seeking to recover the wages owed to him on termination of his employment and the enforcement of the decision of 11 November 1999.
12.  On 16 May 2000 the Commission examined the second complaint of the applicant and ordered that the debts amounting to UAH 847.42[3] be paid to the applicant (for the period of March, May, June, September, October and November 1999).
13.  On 14 June 2000 the Commission issued certificates Nos. 42 (for UAH 687.61[4]) and 43 (for UAH 847.42[5]) acknowledging the Mine’s debts to the applicant.
14.  On 10 August 2000 the Khartsyzsk State Baillifs initiated execution proceedings (виконавче провадження) on the basis of these certificates. The Baillifs set a time-limit for their enforcement, but the Commission’s decisions were not executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds.
15.  On 12 June 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine and held that a moratorium should be imposed on the forced sale of the Mine’s property.
16.  On 5 August 2003 the Government informed the Court that the bankruptcy proceedings were still pending.
17.  On 24 November 2003 the Khartsyzsk City Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints regarding the Baillifs’ failure to enforce the decisions and his claim for compensation for moral damage. This judgment was not appealed and thus became final.
18.  On 22 January 2004 the Mine paid UAH 1,535.00[6] to the applicant, being the full amount of the salary arrears owed to him, in compliance with the Commission’s decisions.
5.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and currently resides in Privolye, the Lugansk Region.
6.  The applicant is an employee of the Kapustin mine of the State-owned Lysychanskugol Company (hereafter “the mine”), which is a structural division of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine.
7.  According to the Government, all of the property of the mine has been in a tax lien since 24 July 1998. Moreover, since August 1997 the mine experienced financial difficulties and therefore salaries were not paid regularly to its employees.
8.  On 25 January 2001 the labour disputes commission of the mine (“the commission”) ordered it to pay the applicant UAH 4,037.60[1] in compensation for unpaid salary for the period of 1997-2000.
9.  Following this decision, the applicant complained to the Lysychansk City Court (the “Lysychansk Court”), seeking to institute proceedings against the mine in order to recover his salary. On 2 February 2001 the Lysychansk Court refused to consider the applicant’s complaints since the commission had already allowed his claims and awarded compensation in his favour.
10.  On 12 February 2001 the Lysychansk Execution Service (the “bailiffs’ ”) initiated execution proceedings. On 5 March 2001 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the commission’s decision could not be executed due to the mine’s lack of funds. On 3 May 2001 the Lugansk Regional Department of Justice confirmed this.
11.  On 29 May 2001 the Arbitration Court of Lugansk instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the mine on the basis of the application lodged by the Luganskoblenergo Company. On 17 July 2001 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court upheld the settlement reached by the parties in the case and discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings.
12.  On 16 October 2001 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the mine on the basis of the application lodged by the Gorlivka Engineering Plant. These proceedings were also discontinued, on 23 September 2002, after a settlement.
13.  On 28 November 2003 the mine transferred UAH 4,037.60[2] to the applicant’s account in the Lysychansk Branch of the Savings Bank of Ukraine.
14.  On 8 December 2003 the bailiffs’ terminated the enforcement proceedings in the case in view of their completion.
15.  On 12 June 2003 the commission awarded the applicant UAH 2,789.26[3] in compensation for salary arrears for the period of 2001-2003.
16.  On 14 May 2004 the bailiffs’ terminated the ensuing enforcement proceedings in view of their completion on 12 June 2003.